Liberals are upset that President Trump talked to the Ukrainian Government about reopening a corruption investigation into a company that had Hunter Biden on the board of directors. This was prompted by Joe Biden himself admitting on a YouTube video that he had the Supervising Prosecutor in question fired and that the new Prosecutor immediately put an end into that investigation.
But they are not upset that President Obama actually got the Ukrainian Government to reopen an investigation into Paul Manafort. This was prompted by nothing more than Manafort being named the campaign manager for the opposition Presidential Candidate. A pure political move designed entirely to harm a political opponent.
Liberals are upset that the NSA moved sensitive conversations between Trump and foreign leader to a secured server away from the rank and file members of the CIA and other operatives. They are upset with this in spite of the fact that no fewer than four sensitive conversations with foreign leaders were illegally leaked to the press by CIA criminals, damaging our relationships with these four countries.
But they are not upset to learn that the NSA did the exact same thing during the Obama administration. They were also not upset to learn that their Presidential Candidate in 2016 actually moved "all" of her conversations to a private server that was set up in a bathroom, all to avoid any oversight of any of her correspondences.
The bottom line is that they want to literally impeach a President for less problematic behavior than they defended when Democrats did it. I simply cannot tell if this is more hypocrisy or just plain stupidity.
50 comments:
The whistleblower will testify.
You are following the speaking points. Lyndsey Graham said the exact same words.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/stephen-miller-says-trump-is-real-whistleblower
HERE YOU HAVE COMPETENT QUESTIONING OF SOMEONE WHO CAN DO LITTLE MORE THAN YELL DEEP STATE, DEEP STATE.
while hypocrisy is the bedrock of liberalism, liberalism's default position on every issue and topic is to LIE.
liberalism's promise is based upon LIES. every liberal policy proposal is a LIE.
lying is the very essence of liberalism. it is mute without the ability to LIE."
like
We are in a recession/depression
or
There are only(@ the most) Three Presidential elections left until the end of Mother Earth
1954 called
"Having trouble with my machine" Dopie
call Biden at 303, 0 03
DEEP STATE! DEEP STATE! DEEP STATE!
Chris Wallace asks the questions everyone will be asking.
no church for fake pastor.
lter
The "hearsay blower" CIA coward
Former White House National Security Advisor Tom Bossert said on Sunday that he’s “deeply frustrated” how Rudy Giuliani and the rest of President Donald Trump’s legal team keep pushing the DNC server hack conspiracy theory.
The White House’s explosive memo on Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky revealed that Trump not only pressured Zelensky to investigate 2020 rival Joe Biden, but also look into the conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, had hacked the DNC server and gotten ahold of Hillary Clinton’s emails in 2016.
“It’s not only a conspiracy, it is completely debunked,”
He used the office to give him political support from a foreign nation. He swore to protect and defend the Constitution, not Donald J. Trump.
Former White House National Security Advisor Tom Bossert said on Sunday that he’s “deeply frustrated” how Rudy Giuliani and the rest of President Donald Trump’s legal team keep pushing the DNC server hack conspiracy theory.
The White House’s explosive memo on Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky revealed that Trump not only pressured Zelensky to investigate 2020 rival Joe Biden, but also look into the conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, had hacked the DNC server and gotten ahold of Hillary Clinton’s emails in 2016.
“It’s not only a conspiracy, it is completely debunked,” Bossert told ABC News’ “This Week” host George Stephanopoulos.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/tom-bossert-deeply-frustrated-dnc-crowdstrike-conspiracy-theory
stealing from josh marshall again, alky?
Second, my distinction: Information is not interference. Based on the call transcript, Trump asked Zelensky to get to the bottom of whether Ukraine or Ukrainians interfered in the 2016 election. One may consider Trump’s concerns absurd or silly. Alternatively, one may suspect Ukrainian involvement. I do not know and will not pretend to know, because whether Ukraine was actually involved is irrelevant. The request for information that the Ukrainian president may be uniquely positioned to offer is fair and does not, in and of itself, constitute election interference.
The president is well within his rights to seek information from his counterparts abroad. He can ask Zelensky if the Dodgers will make the World Series, or who Zelensky thinks is the most formidable Democratic candidate. Soliciting information, in the form of facts or opinion, does not constitute election interference. It does not constitute having a foreign head of state do opposition research for the Trump campaign. It is not some of in-kind contribution.
Nor is there anything wrong with the president using leverage to get answers to his questions. Ukraine is not in NATO. Ukraine has been an ally of the United States some of the time, but at other times has been a de facto extension of the Russian Federation. And while the United States owes Ukraine certain obligations owing to the Budapest Memorandum, obligations the last administration ignored, Ukraine does not enjoy a constitutional or treaty right to Javelin missiles. Regardless of whether or not Trump asks important questions or stupid ones, by virtue of his office, he has the right to ask what he wants and use the leverage he controls to get answers. Because the national interest is served by those questions, even if they also align with Trump’s perceived political self-interest, a quid pro quo is not a problem.
While the seeking of information does not intrinsically constitute a problem — indeed, it’s exactly the sort of thing we want the president doing in exchanges with foreign heads of state — what Trump chooses to do with the information he receives matters immensely. Were Trump to pass documents to his campaign, that would blend his official powers with his electioneering apparatus, which is against campaign-finance law. Were Trump to tell Zelensky to leak whatever damaging information he might find about Biden, that too would constitute election interference. Obviously, if Trump asked Zelensky to target Biden or his campaign with hacking, it would be a crime. If he asked Zelensky to fabricate information and leak it to the public, this impeachment talk would be completely justified.
Yet Trump did not do these things. He asked for information that might help him serve the national interest in his capacity as president. Whether one trusts Trump to act accordingly or not is not itself impeachable in the absence of action. Similarly, that Trump failed to follow up regarding his invocation of Attorney General Barr is neither a problem nor surprising given his lackluster organizational tendencies.
But what if we were to treat the request for information as tantamount to interference? Let us trace this line of thinking to its absurd conclusion. If Trump cannot ask anyone, foreign or domestic, about the obviously dubious behavior of a political rival, then we have created a de facto immunity for anybody running for president, an immunity that extends to their family if they mix family with previous public-office holding. So long as American officials and private citizens misbehave abroad and then run for president, they cannot be investigated legitimately, so this line of thinking goes.
As a historical matter, this would mean that the Benghazi and Clinton Foundation investigations undertaken by Congress were illegitimate the day they began because they had political consequences for presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. They would similarly mean that the Russiagate investigation was wrong the day it began. And while many people can justifiably point to misbehavior by Russiagate investigators, it cannot reasonably be said that Donald Trump’s words, deeds, and associates made that investigation unreasonable from the get-go. Indeed, we can go still further back.
Going back further still, if targeting a political opponent for investigation is illegitimate under any circumstances, then FDR was wrong to direct the FBI to work with friendly European governments to investigate Charles Lindbergh and the German American Bund.
Clearly, creating an effective blanket immunity for those powerful enough to run for president is truly the stuff of banana republics. Indeed, if it achieved anything, it would only encourage well-heeled rascals to run for office while simultaneously encouraging the politically connected to engage in international graft. I, for one, think America has enough of both already.
Because the national interest is served by those questions, even if they also align with Trump’s perceived political self-interest, a quid pro quo is not a problem.
and reduced to its essence, this clearly illustrates the weakness of the impeachment case against trump.
those of us on the right will end up being thankful for all of this as the testimony we have yet to hear will not only exonerate trump, but it will expose all of the crimes that were actually committed by the 0linsky regime, clinton, biden, and all the rest.
once again the law of unintended consequences will rear its ugly head and bite the democrats hard and squarely on the ass.
Finally, I would like to close with two observations. Neither is logically necessary to my argument, but both are sociologically and constitutionally worth examining. Many people are uncomfortable with the president leveraging America’s superior power to extract concessions from an inferior. I question this instinct. Power involves coercion and brokering. It can look and feel gross. It can be smutty. We have two and a half millennia of political philosophy in large part because goodness and political effectiveness have a complicated relationship. People can be bad and ineffective, yes. The good guys sometimes win too. But politics at the highest level has long been recognized as sitting in an awkward relationship to morality.
As a result, politics isn’t for everybody. Though we misattribute the idiom to Bismarck, Americans have long understood that people prefer to eat sausage rather than see it get made. The Framers of the Constitution, who expected to be the weaker party — to be in Zelensky’s position rather than Trump’s — understood this. That’s why Article II, Section 2 gives the president the power to negotiate treaties. Those treaties come into effect only when ratified by the Senate, so the conclusion of a deal is subject to popular review. However, the back-and-forth required to get that deal is and should remain a solely presidential power. If anything, the White House was too quick to disclose the transcript of Trump’s call with Zelensky.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/tom-bossert-deeply-frustrated-dnc-crowdstrike-conspiracy-theory
https://www-nationalreview-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/why-trump-did-nothing-wrong-in-his-phone-call-with-zelensky/amp/?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D#aoh=15697728517271&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalreview.com%2F2019%2F09%2Fwhy-trump-did-nothing-wrong-in-his-phone-call-with-zelensky%2F
better late than never on that stolen link, eh alky?
“I have the right to do whatever I want as president”
You all agree with him. But if President Hillary Clinton had declared herself above the law and “I have the right to do whatever I want as president”, this blog would be shouting #impeachment in 500 word diatribes, the liberal Democrat hate the Constitution and for which it stands.
Plagiarism from the blog genius!
That link was provided in the previous thread.
You're too much of a dumbass to read it.
But if President Hillary Clinton had declared herself above the law and...
blah, blah, blah.
i'm old enough to remember when that feckless gasbag cunt told us that challenging the results of the election was a "direct threat to our democracy."
and ever since the day trump was inaugurated all his political opponents have been doing is directly threatening our democracy.
trump won and you lost alky. fair and fucking square.
man up and fucking deal with it.
and if you're going to go after the man on legal grounds, at least hit him with charges the democrats themselves have NOT committed.
"Roger AmickSeptember 29, 2019 at 11:15 AM
Plagiarism from the blog genius!"
Hey, Gutter Drunk, he already provided the link.
You are the only one that missed it.
now is a good time to apologize
Where is Joe Biden?
maybe we can find him by trackingbhis Life Alert.
Hey goat fucker....when are you going to take trumps dick out of your old white ass??????? BWWWAAAAAAAAAAA
Hey goat fucker....when are you going to take trumps dick out of your old white ass??????? BWWWAAAAAAAAAAA
Double the obscenities double the stupidity.
The very definition of open mind and sanity...
Is that you actually can see both sides to any issue.
So far not a single liberal has addressed the objective fact that Obama did the same thing with Ukraine, and that the NSA moved Obama calls with foreign leaders to a secured location...
Moreover, no liberal has explained how it is that they could defend the fact that Clinton moved all of HERE emails and correspondences to a private locations (without permission)...
but be upset that the NSA perfectly legally moved Trump's phone calls?
Once more Obama was aware she was using a private mail server.
This is so funny.
Hillary Clinton: Pres. Trump "has turned American diplomacy into a cheap extortion racket."
Her whole tenure as Secretary State was one giant extortion racket and not so cheap at that.
Seems influence peddling was a favorite pastime of senior Obama officials.
And none of the DemStream Media looked into the Lost Years ,because, well, you know.
1954 called
"Having trouble with my machine" Dopie
ABC News Politics
✔
@ABCPolitics
JUST IN: Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe Pres. Trump's encouragement of a foreign leader to investigate a political rival and his family is a serious problem, according to a new @ABC News/Ipsos poll. https://abcn.ws/2m37BTD
Obama did not do the same thing.
I did worse and got away with it. Because I knew I could count on stupid people like you to defend me no matter the facts.
Here we go:
First off, Ukraine is a very corrupt country. This is the one thing that all sides agree on.
In particular, Ukraine’s Prosecutor General in 2016 was Viktor Shokin, a man so corrupt that both the IMF and pretty much every European country insisted he be removed if Ukraine wanted any assistance from the outside world.
At this time, Shokin was not investigating Burisma, the energy company on which Hunter Biden held a board seat. This is one of the (many) reasons he was considered corrupt.
Joe Biden later told the story of Shokin’s firing like this: “I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.” Now, this might be a bit of Biden exaggeration, but it accurately describes the general attitude toward Shokin at the time.
A new Prosecutor General was appointed and immediately reopened the investigation into Burisma. In other words, by switching prosecutors Biden probably made things harder on his son, not easier.
The new prosecutor eventually reached a deal with Burisma. As with everything in Ukraine, it’s unclear if this was on the up-and-up, but in any case
He was no longer in office!
There has never been even a hint of evidence that Hunter Biden did anything wrong. He’s a Washington lobbyist who sits on various boards and had done a few small jobs for Burisma during the Obama administration.
The head of Burisma at the time was trying to assemble an “all-star” board of directors and approached Hunter Biden. Was this an attempt to curry favor with the White House? I wouldn’t be surprised. But that has nothing to do with Hunter Biden’s work for Burisma, which he says was mostly about corporate governance.
The new prosecutor has stated many times that his investigation came up with absolutely nothing on Hunter Biden.
Likewise, there’s not a hint of evidence that Joe Biden ever did anything wrong.
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/09/the-hunter-biden-timeline/
The Ukrainian investigator that has been assigned to the case differs with whatever Ukrainian insiders that MotherJones and Kevin Drum are listening to. The only way to determine who is telling the truth is to open up an investigation into all of those activities. Full transparency and possibly a special counsel is necessary.
JUST IN: Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe Pres. Trump's encouragement of a foreign leader to investigate a political rival and his family is a serious problem, according to a new @ABC News/Ipsos poll. https://abcn.ws/2m37BTD
The poll's sample is 540 adults. 540 adults doesn't tell you jack shit. You need 1200 to 1300 adults, or better yet registered voters.
The new prosecutor has stated many times that his investigation came up with absolutely nothing on Hunter Biden.
Nor would it if you weren't investigating Hunter Biden. He got the message from slow Joe.
Joe Biden stop any investigation into his son's activities.
Joe Biden stopPED any investigation into his son's activities.
Link?
Actually, it was only AFTER the corrupt Shokin's firing (demanded not only by Biden but by several of our European allies) that Burisma DID begin to be investigated.
That they found "nothing wrong". It's good the have (employees) opps friends in high places. Especially American high places.
Cramps our GED passing judgement on polls.......BWAAAAAAAA!!!!
The poll's sample is 540 adults. 540 adults doesn't tell you jack shit.
While you adore the Rasmussen daily tracking poll which samples
Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from a demographically diverse panel.
You are such a fucking loser.....jag off!!!! Thanx again for proving you know jack shit personally!!!!!! BWAAAAAAAAA!
Actually, it was only AFTER the corrupt Shokin's firing (demanded not only by Biden but by several of our European allies) that Burisma DID begin to be investigated.
Well James...
There are multiple report basically stating entirely the opposite, complete with direct quotes from people within the Ukrainian Government. The original investigator says his investigation never was completed, the new President is open to looking into things...
On your side, what do you have other than Mother Jones, the NYT and others making an alternate theory based on... yep... anonymous sources within the Ukrainian government? What would anyone from the Ukrainian government have to gain by "anonymously" talking to David Corn or whoever.
The only "source" on record that denies allegations of corruption is the Prosecutor who shut down the investigation, claiming that he had good reason to do so. Which of course... what else would he say?
It's a rolling three day average so the sample size is 1500. That's how tracking polls work.
My God you're ignorant.
Post a Comment